Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

USC Scientists Uncover Secrets Of Feather Formation
University Of Southern California / ScienceDaily.com ^ | 10/31/2002 | Cheng-Ming Chuong, et al

Posted on 10/31/2002 6:51:38 AM PST by forsnax5

Los Angeles, Oct. 30, 2002 - Scientists from the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California have, for the first time, shown experimentally the steps in the origin and development of feathers, using the techniques of molecular biology. Their findings will have implications for the study of the morphogenesis of various epithelial organs-from hairs to lung tissue to mammary glands-and is already shedding light on the controversy over the evolution of dinosaur scales into avian feathers.

(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: animalhusbandry; crevolist; dietandcuisine; dinosaurevolution; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221 next last
To: VadeRetro
Please show where the article mischaracterizes Shh.

When the article states that:

and the whimsically named sonic hedgehog (Shh) – were found to result in new feathers.

Sonic hedgehog does not produce feathers in other species, it produces feathers only in those species whose organisms have other DNA which does produce feathers. It has many purposes:

Sonic hedgehog gene transfer may hasten hair regrowth after chemotherapy. From: here

Sonic Hedgehog shapes the brain here

Sonic hedgehog (Shh) is a signaling molecule that is important for defining patterning in the developing vertebrate central nervous system. From: here

a gene called Sonic Hedgehog is used to control the formation of nerve cells called ganglion cells in the eye. From: here

It not only does different things in different species but it even is used to make different features in the same species. So yes, the implication made in the sentence I quoted above from the article is totally false.

81 posted on 10/31/2002 7:48:56 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Know what this means?

What it means is that the article is full of half truths. Those three genes which are present in many other species will never produce a feather in a lizard, a dinosaur, or any other non feathered species. The article itself goes very lightly on it but it admits that there are other genes involved in producing these feathers. The purpose of the article is just as what I said, to make it seem that feather production can be achieved with just a few changes here and there to any creature. It is not so. As I said in a post above, let them do the same thing with a lizard and let them give all the details of what they had to do to make a feathered lizard. Then we can talk about how 'simple' feathers are.

82 posted on 10/31/2002 7:53:55 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Gee! You seem close to discovering that Shh regulates epithelial tissue.
83 posted on 10/31/2002 7:55:32 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
There's nothing magic about complexity, either.

We are not talking magic, we are talking design. No highly complex thing with great specificity of purpose has ever arisen by random chance. No natural forces have ever created any highly complex thing. Random chance, the agent of evolution cannot intelligently design anything. When one has a jigsaw puzzle of thousands of pieces, one cannot go around making the pieces to fit exactly with each other by chance. This is what evolutionists claim and it is utter nonsense.

84 posted on 10/31/2002 7:58:02 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I think I must be doing quite well...

Yep, you seem to confuse most everything else. I did write---"That's a either a silly question or an incomplete one. " I was right on target.

85 posted on 10/31/2002 7:59:30 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Gee! You seem close to discovering that Shh regulates epithelial tissue.

I never said it did not. I only said it only does so in species which have such tissue and which have other DNA which allows for feathers. As a matter of fact humans have this very same gene. Let's see your scientists grow feathers on a human - then you can talk.

86 posted on 10/31/2002 8:00:22 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"There's nothing magic about complexity"

I just got Wolfram's "New Science" book as a birthday present. I had to look up what he says about evolution, since some on FR said he disputed evolution as a source of complexity.

What he says, in a nutshell, is that irreducible complexity can arise from very simple programs, and that a very simple program can produce a noncomputible output -- that is to say, there can be no shortcut or formula that predicts the outcome -- only way to know is to run the program.

Perhaps I am simple minded, but I interpret this to mean that things can exist that cannot be designed, because the process that produces them is immune from prediction. It's a very interesting asssertion, that a deterministic, binary process with just a handful of rules, can produce an infinitely complex output.

Wolfram equates genes with these simple kinds of programs, and assumes that natural selection prunes them.
87 posted on 10/31/2002 8:03:44 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: general_re
If the best you can do is lie about my position,

What is your position on Darwininianism?

88 posted on 10/31/2002 8:04:06 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
What is your position on Darwininianism?

"You consider anything as evidence supporting Darwininianism."

It's not my job to make your case for you. If you can't back that statement up, I suggest you consider retracting it.

89 posted on 10/31/2002 8:09:09 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

Comment #90 Removed by Moderator

To: general_re
I suggest you consider retracting it.

Nope. I don't need to back it up. I'm playing your game.

91 posted on 10/31/2002 8:19:35 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
If the best you can do is lie about my position, I think I must be doing quite well...
92 posted on 10/31/2002 8:26:32 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: general_re
but if you wish to castigate the conclusion by implying that it is untruthful

This part is not silly, it is just flat wrong.

Valid is not the same thing as true. I did not imply untruth, I stated I did not accept something as valid in a specific context.

93 posted on 10/31/2002 8:28:27 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"Validity" is not contingent upon AndrewC's acceptance...
94 posted on 10/31/2002 8:31:30 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: general_re
but if you wish to castigate the conclusion by implying that it is untruthful

This part is not silly, it is just flat wrong.

Valid is not the same thing as true. I did not imply untruth, I stated I did not accept something as valid in a specific context.

95 posted on 10/31/2002 8:31:53 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

Thank you all. Thank you - really, you're too kind. Remember, my partner and I will be here at the Starlite Lounge all week, and the 7:00 show is completely different from the 5. Please don't forget to tip your servers.

Thank you, and good night!

96 posted on 10/31/2002 8:35:53 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: general_re
To: AndrewC

No outcome. That is my point.

Do you then consider this study to be invalid?

21 posted on 10/31/2002 10:06 AM CST by general_re


97 posted on 10/31/2002 8:37:32 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I don't personally know of any born-again Christian who is trying, desperately or otherwise, to stamp out any new discovery in evolution. That's because there really aren't any such discoveries. Evolution holds the record for the world's most vacuous field of scientific endeavor, surpassing in futility the output of medieval theologians who debated angels dancing on pins.

If you read the article, you'll find that at the end, the scientist admits they don't know anything about how evolution works. All these scientists have done is proven that if you take the gene for producing feather cells and manipulate it, you can get feather cells that don't produce feathers. This simply proves that, at the hands of evolutionary scientists, harmful mutation can occur. Not only was Rome not built in a day, it also wasn't built by smashing the buildings.

98 posted on 10/31/2002 8:45:09 PM PST by 537 Votes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Now let's see. We have on the bags - we have Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third.

That's what I wanna find out.

I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third -

You know the fellows' names?

Certainly!

Well then who's on first?

Yes!

I mean the fellow's name!

Who!

The guy on first!

Who!

The first baseman!

Who!

The guy playing first!

Who is on first!

Now whaddya askin' me for?

I'm telling you Who is on first.

Well, I'm asking YOU who's on first!

99 posted on 10/31/2002 8:50:39 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: general_re

No outcome. That is my point.

Do you then consider this study to be invalid?

Do you then consider this study to be invalid?

That's a either a silly question or an incomplete one. Invalid in what context?

It is clear to me that I strongly implied, that as evidence supporting Darwininian evolution, it was invalid since either outcome would be used as evidence. Since I did not argue about the experimental protocol, it is clear to me that I accepted this claim --- "These results suggest that the barbs form first and later fuse to form a rachis, much like downy feathers are formed before flight feathers when a chicken grows up.

I do not accept this ---Under the general rule of ontogeny repeating phylogeny, downy feather made only of barbs probably appeared before the evolution of feathers with rachides and capable of flight," Chuong says. as necessarily valid.


100 posted on 10/31/2002 9:06:39 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 221 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson